CLOSE CALLS

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 48, 20 November 1925, Page 10

CLOSE CALLS

TIES IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

STIRRING BATTLES OF THE PAST .. -£

The strange coincidence recorded on Wednesday of both the Westland and Lyttelton seats being decided on the casting votes of the returning officers, has occasioned widespread public interest, and there has been much argument as to whether or not the returning officers should have given their casting votes in favour of The sitting member.

The returning officers were strictly within the law in exercising their votes in favour of whichever candidate they fancied. Section 146 of the Legislature Act, 1908, reads:

Where there is an equality of votes between any candidates, and the addition of a vote would entitle one of such candidates to be declared to be elected, the returning officer (whether an elector of the district or not) shall give a casting vote. Battles of the Past. A DOMINION reporter waited upon Mr. J. J. Ames, the veteran returning officer, vesterday with a view to learning if that gentleman, who conducted elections in the Wellington district for upwards of 50 years, could recall parallel instances with Wednesday’s two ties in Parliamentary elections. “I remember an election which took place fully 50 years ago,” said Mr. Ames, “for an electorate which stretched from the Rangitikei River down to Willis Street, Wellington, taking in ,Terawhiti, Makara, and Karori. The principal polling booth -was at Foxton, 1 and I had to establish the polling booths at the various scattered stations bv coach and on horseback. There were no such . things /as railways in those davs, and Palmerston North did not exist. The candidates were Wilson, Izard. Newman, and Butler. They tell me that a tie occurred on that occasion, and that I gave mv casting vote in favour of Wilson (now Sir James Wilson). Anyhow, I know that Wilson was returned, and if a tie occurred I must have voted for him. Perhaps I did: it is a long time ago, and I doh’t remember the actual details. I never kept a record of those elections. ■ “I recollect a very close contest for the Wellington Mayoralty in 1870, in which Dransfield beat Hutchison by one vote. We have had many close contests in which the candidates got home bv three or four votes, but we never took much notice of these; they were all in the game; and our duty was to tot up the votes, and announce the totals for each candidate.”

“I can say, however,” said Mr. Ames, “that I would not have given my vote as did the’ officers at Westland and Lyttelton. It has been my ruje to always give the casting vote to the sitting member. In exercising my vote, I have always put personal inclinations aside, and have only considered what was the proper course to pursue.” Other Dead-heats. References to early files of New Zealand newspapers disclose that similar happenings as occurred on Wednesday have taken place in the past. Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Hay hurst each polled 102 votes for the Geraldine seat at an election fifty years ago, and Captain Woollconibe, the returning officer, gave his casting vote in favour of Mr. Wakefield. Captain Woollcombe had not already voted as an' elector of the district, and in declaring Mr. Wakefield elected he said he had given his vote to the best man.

A tie also occurred at Motueka on February 10, 1871, the candidates being Sir David Monro, who had been Speaker for many years, and Mr. Charles Parker. Both candidates polled 193 votes, and the returning officer gave his casting vote in favour of the sitting member. A petition was subsequently presented to Parliament challenging the validity of the election, and an investigation by a committee disclosed that a vote had been polled for Sir David Monro by a man who was not registered as an elector. The ballot paper was disallowed, and Sir David Monro was unseated, and Mr. Parker was declared elected by one vote. In 1890, Mr. R. H. J. Reeves was re-elected for Inangalitia by one vote; in 1899, Mr. John Bollard defeated Mr. Malcolm Nicol for Eden by a single vote; and at the same election the Hon. G. W. Russell beat the Hon. William Rolleston for Riccarton by the same narrow margin.

“IT IS AN OUTRAGE” LABOUR MEMBER’S VIEWS Br Teliokaph—Special Correspondent. Auckland November 19. “To put it mildly, it is an outrage,” said Mr. M. J. Savage, M.P., deputyleader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, when asked to-day for his opinion on the way in which the returning officers had exercised their casting votes to determine the ties in the Lyttelton and Westland elections. “The returning officers have done a stupid thing, and one at variance with all established precedent. In Parliament and outside it, whenever there is a tie, the custom is for .the casting vote to be cast to maintain the existing order. “Apparently no one questions that view in the case of Lyttelton, but because Mr. T E. Y. Seddon formerly was member for Westland for a number of years it is argued there is room for exception in his case, but surely that is a quibble. A correct statement of’ the position is that in 1922 the. electors rejected Mr. Seddon, and they have not yet given a majority for his return. The retiring members in each case were Mr. J. McCombs and Mr. J. O’Brien, and the casting votes should have gone to return them—that is, against changing the existing order. That is the rule, and in breaking it the returning officers took it upon themselves to do something that would not be done by' any man of common-sense or any fairminded man. The rule' or custom should have been applied, and anyone who knew his business could not have cast his vote except for the retiring member. It is a pretty solid state of affairs that we should have to stand by and see two of our party defeated through the stupidity and obvious bias of returning officers. It was certainly less stupidity and more bias on their part. Consider their position a moment. If I employ anyone for pay to further my candidature, that man has no vote. Similaily, a returning officer is employed and paid, and has no vote. He is supposed to be separate and apart from political affairs, and to act in a just and impartial manner. He is not supposed to have any preferences, ; nd there is no precedent anywhere for his using his personal choice. Therefore, the returning officer has no vote When by the

turn of events he is called on to exercise his casting vote, he should act in the same impersonal mannei. Admitted the law does not direct him in any way, but in the absence of legal guidance the next best course for a man in his impersonal position is to be guided by custom. In such circumstances custom or precedent takes the force of law. A returning officer not recognising any political party, and having no personal bias; follows custom and casts his vote to maintain the existing order. That is com-mon-sense, and it is fair, as 75 per cent, of New Zealanders will agree. Finally, I hope that if a similar combination of circumstances were to occur again, and if a Labour candidate who was not the retiring member were returned on the casting vote, that lie would refuse to take his seat under such conditions. The unfairness of it is unanswerable.”

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE CASTING VOTE AGAINST CHANGE By Telegraph—Press AssociationAuckland, November 19. While he had no recollection of a tie having previously occurred in a ■ Parliamentary election, Sir Frederic Lang? M.L.C., ex-Speaker of the House of Representatives, quoted the rule m the House that when voting was even • the Speaker gave his vote to maintain ' the existing order; in other words, he voted that'there should be no change. In the case of Lyttelton and Westlaud, if this precedent had been applied, the returning officers’ votes would have been cast so that there would be no change and in favour of the retiring members, Mr. McCombs in Lyttelton and Mr. O’Brien in Westland. Of course, in the case of Westland, Mr. Seddon was an ex-member who had represented the constituency for longer than Mr. O’Brien, and that might have influenced the i eturning officer; but in the case of Lyttelton the Parliamentary procedure was clearly in favour of the casting vote going in favour of Mr. McCombs. When a tie occurred in local body elections, it was a well-established custom for the returning officer to give his casting vote in favour of the retiring member. It was assumed that where one of those concerned was a retiring member the electorate had not voted for a change.

A RETURNING OFFICER’S VIEWS

By TnLLGnArii — Special CorhEsPonDENt. Auckland, November 19. The position that* has arisen in both Westland and Lyttelton electorates was submitted to an ilucklaud Returning Officer with many' years’ experience of general elections. Wliile the present position is unique, the possibility of such a point arising has often been contemplated, and this Auckland officer said*"that many years. ago_ he had discussed this very problem with other returning officers. Without exception they had all stated that if occasion arose they would give their casting vote in favour of the retiring member. In the opinion of this officer the retiring member is not defeated until the Returning Officer has given his casting vote, and to his mind it was not for the Returning Officer to defeat the retiring member. That, he said, was the view of most returning officer* with whom he had come in contact. While he had no recollection of a tie having previously occurred in a Parliamentary election, Sir Frederic Lang, M.L.C.,' a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, quoted a rule in the House when voting was even. In that case the Speaker gave his vote to maintain the existing order. In other words, he voted that things should remain as they were. There would be no change in the case of Lyttelton and Westland if this precedent -were applied. The Returning. Officer’s vote would be cast so that there would be no change. In the case of Westland, Mr. Seddon was an ex-member, who had represented the constituency for longer than Mr. O’Brien, and that might have influenced the Returning Officer, but in the case of Lyttelton Parliamentary procedure was clearly in favour of the casting vote going in favour of Mr. McCombs. When a tie occurred in local body elections it was a well-established custom for the Returning Officer to give his casting vote in favour of the retiring member.

MR. COATES WITHHOLDS COMMENT By Teusohapii.—PuEss Association. Dunedin, November 19. When informed this morning of the fact that both the Lyttelton and Westland elections had been decided bv the casting votes of the returning officers, cast in each case against the immediate past member for the electorate, Mr. Coates said: “I suppose there are recounts, and so on, still to come. At least there probably will be. I prefer to say nothing about the matter M the present stage.”